There've been some pretty nasty responses to this letter, calling the LW names and telling her she shouldn't be involved with this man because it's just going to screw the kid's life up even more than it already is. I have no reason to call the LW names, but I have to agree to some extent that getting involved with someone with young kids is an issue.

My ex-boyfriend has 2 kids, 15 and 9. They are nice kids, but they have issues--probably partly due to their parents' long-combative relationship and tying-not-to-be-bitter divorce. I got along very well with them, and made no attempt to parent them (keeping in mind that I do not have children myself) when they were visiting me--I left that up to the BF. MY rule with the kids was that I had no opinion unless it directly affected me or my dogs. So if a kid did something dangerous to a dog, I would discipline (they never did). Otherwise, I had no opinion unless my BF referred them directly to me to ask for something.

One of the issues (there were others, so don't think this was the only one) in our breakup, though, was that he felt that I resented the kids to some extent--and to some extent, that was true. I genuinely believe that if you have young children, they should be the top priority, and I would have had contempt for him if he had ever behaved in any other way. However, *I* want to be the top priority in someone's life. So reluctantly, I told myself that I wouldn't date anyone with younger kids (my current BF has no kids).

I think younger (as in toddler-age) kids take divorce better, and of course it varies from child to child. But honestly, if I were the LW and wanted to continue the relationship with my BF, I'd pull back from the relationship with the kid. Let the BF see him alone, have one-on-one weekends. If they absolutely must stay at the LW's house, maybe the LW should go away for the weekend--seriously. Takes the stress off of everyone.

Clearly the child is a bone of contention, and he feels it. So either you break up (or take some time off) or figure out a way to let the kid have *his* time with *his* dad without your interference.

Try putting a cat in a barrel and going over the falls in it.

It's a cute story, but it seems unlikely that a dog's nose would be able to plug a hole in a barrel THAT completely (it couldn't possibly be airtight), or that the person sharing the barrel with the dog wouldn't be able to pull the dog's snout out.

Actually, I usually like this cartoonist, but the whole thing seems kind of pointless.

So Miss America's talent couldn't be, say, dog training?

I'd be really impressed to see some contestant set up a bunch of Agility equipment and run a course with a speedy Sheltie (just 'cuz I like Shelties) right there on stage. It would be different, and it would show that the woman has put some work into something other than applying Crest WhiteStrips (c'mon, from what I've seen most of those "talents" are pretty useless). And AKC has a scholarship program in their own right which anyone under 18 who shows dogs can participate in--that's any type of competition in AKC events, not just conformation (the doggy beauty pageant).

Anyway, the point is that if there was a chance of seeing something like that I'd actually WATCH a beauty pageant. Otherwise there's just too much teeth and bad singing.

Jackson wrote:

Folks, the simple truth is that she seems happy and content with her current choices--more happy and content than with her previous choices. And writing about it may in fact present a viewpoint on the issue that some people haven't heard or considered.

I kind of felt sorry for her, actually. She didn't seem happy either with rampant promiscuity OR with her chosen chastity (BTW, I've gone without sex for about 5 years before, and I cannot say it was a cleansing experience, or much fun--OTOH, you DO get used to it, and it provided a nice reset of my priorities).

Why in this country do we always have to go to extremes? And then write tell-all memoirs about them? Where are the books from people who did a little sleeping around, had a little fun, and later on got married and had kids and found out THAT was fun too? All without near O.D.'s or major religious conversion? Oh wait--that's most of us, and we're boring...

I have no problem with people being vegetarians/vegans. None whatsoever. And maybe it WOULD be a better world if we all were--though pretty much the only reason for domestic pigs, cows, sheep and so forth to exist is to provide food/clothing for people--if we all foreswore meat, milk, eggs, leather and wool, those species would die out. What's annoying, though, is the pose of superiority immediately assumed by people who make this choice (and who should know better). They're nearly as annoying as the BARF (for dogs) diet evangelists

For the most part, being a vegetarian/vegan and doing it RIGHT (getting all your nutrients) requires money and time, so I would dispute that vegetarians/vegans are necessarily healthier or thinner than meat eaters. I know vegetarians who eat a LOT of highly processed food which can't be particulary good or healthier than eating meat.

A research doctor where I used to work once told me that cancer is %80 genetic and %20 what you do. So it seems almost like magical thinking to try to use your diet to ward off certain diseases.